In a recent case in relation to the liquidation of Echelon Wealth Management Limited ("E"), Lord Glennie has decided that upon removal as liquidator, a former liquidator may not retain from the assets of the liquidated company any sum as security for costs.
The Facts
S&C were appointed joint liquidators of E at a creditors meeting on 16 December 2008. At a creditors meeting on 22 July 2009, they were then removed from office with new joint liquidators being appointed.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ROGAN (May 12, 2011)
The well known travails of Fred Wilpon, the principal owner of the New York Mets, have all converged this past week. He, his partner Saul Katz and their families and affiliated enterprises (the “Wilpon/Katz Group”) lost several hundred million dollars when Bernard Madoff’s long running Ponzi scheme finally unraveled at the height of the financial crisis in 2008.
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION v. LAKE SHORE ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD. (May 11, 2011)
In its ministerial statement this week in relation to its consultation on the proposals for a restructuring moratorium, the Government has indicated that it now proposes to consider implementing measures to tackle the unreasonable use of termination clauses in insolvencies.
What Are Termination Clauses?
Termination clauses are, of course, found in most commercial agreements and are a means by which a party may terminate an agreement on the occurrence of certain events (invariably including insolvency of the other party).
In the recent English Court of Appeal case of Rubin v Coote, the court allowed a liquidator to settle litigation without having obtained the agreement of all creditors to the compromise.
The Facts
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has taken under advisement the latest case involving the now contentious issue of credit bidding.
STAMAT v. NEARY (March 24, 2011)
The recent Court of Session case of Tayplan Limited (in administration) v Smith, is particularly interesting as it is a case where the administrator chose to pursue directors for breach of fiduciary duties rather than using any of the more common statutory remedies.
The Facts
Tayplan Limited was a family business with two directors - Mr Smith senior and Mr Smith junior. Mr Smith senior and his wife each held 50% of the shares in the Company.